CC 8/29 Class

Two things really struck me from class this week. The primary thing is this “which came first” game. In my earlier years as an English major (or a student at Valencia with the thought of becoming an English major in her head) I probably never considered much about language as a system. Sure, I thought about grammar, spelling, and writing those damn five paragraph essays, but I never really thought about how language functions or what keeps certain words alive while others die, I don’t think I even gave much thought to how our English signifiers can be so completely different than signifiers in other languages. It was just out there for me to use, and I did- thinking I understood it.
Then when I first became introduced to Saussure, Foucault, Lacan, Baudrillard, Derrida, (only a few semesters ago) etc. I probably got a bit too carried away. Maybe I took it a little TOO seriously. Though their theories were each different, they all pretty much seemed to reject the notion of metaphysics. On top of that, they all offered really convincing arguments that thought only unveils itself through language; therefore it can’t really exist before the system which created it. Well, as my last post suggests, I latched onto those theories thinking I would never look back. The idea of “In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was God,” that we talked about in class, seemed far more insufficient as a theory of language. It seemed to lack any scientific merit, even the smallest strand of evidence, at least Saussure helped me understand the signifier and the signified making a sign (arbitrarily, not by any divine will). Well, this resonated with me and it made sense to me.
But, naturally, deeper reflection on this stuff causes one to change her mind, or at least to question her place on top of the soapbox. So now, I stand with one foot on the ground because I think I’m coming off the box. I start to think of things like, “if there was no thought before language than how did language come about? Doesn’t it require human thought for something new to take place, especially something so intricate and systematic?” Well, animals have a form of communication and they are certainly not capable of abstract thought. Cave people had ideas, tools and fire were discovered, so wasn’t there thought behind that? Now my ideas seem blurry again on the subject. The closest I can come to reconciling this idea in a way that makes sense would be to maybe suggest that thought existed before language, but probably not abstract thought. There were instinctual thoughts maybe, like “I want food. I’m going to eat that pig. I have to make it stop moving first. I’ll makes something sharp to poke a hole in it.” Haha stupid example. But the thoughts that come along with the first words and grunts of communication were probably instinctual and vague because there was no language in the person’s mind to really form a complete thought (like no word for pig, or eat, etc to complete the sign.). Nonetheless, something is still there. There is still a form of thought indicating to the person that he/she is hungry and needs to do something about it. So yeah, that soapbox is far behind me now.
Maybe the point isn’t whether or not there was thought before language, but maybe the focus should be more on the notion that thought cannot really be abstracted or conveyed or put to use without language. People might have made noises indicating this or that, but it wasn’t until they realized that it helped them to communicate things to other humans that they expanded on the system. It wasn’t until there was some kind of tangible, contractual, linguistic system in place that human thoughts began to take shape- like that silly example, “if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around…”.
Secondly, I am having some trouble with the idea of urbane urbanism. Perhaps it is because I am misinterpreting the purpose behind it, but it seems to me that it contradicts many of the other tenants that Jencks listed as possible rules for postmodern architecture. By this I mean that the other tenants such as radical eclecticism, pluralism, anthropomorphism, or disharmonious harmony, all seem to focus on the importance of the individual, the importance of community, and the beauty in difference. Urbane urbanism, on the other hand, seems to be quite the opposite. To me, it suggests that things should look the same. Cities should overtake landscapes etc. Urbane urbanism speaks to me of all the awful places we mentioned in class, Avalon Park, Celebration, College Park, etc. Places where architects look back to the 50’s through rose colored lenses and think, “won’t it be nice if we make everyone put the same kind of flowers on their front porches?” The only tenant of postmodernism that this seems to adhere to is the inclusion of the past without forgetting modern technological advances. This week was a week of confusion and frustration.
On the positive side of things, I really responded to the postmodern architecture slides that we looked at, particularly the Rotterdam buildings and the ones that incorporate the idea of the absent center. This is a “rule” that Jencks listed that resonates better with my personal sensibilities (and it seems to fit in with the rest of Jencks’ guidelines far better than urbane urbanism). The absent center is both shocking and rewarding when you first look at it. It plays tricks with your mind, forcing you to think about the architect’s intent. Furthermore, as Jencks beautifully illustrates the “paradox” of the absent center is “both startling and revealing: a desire for communal space, a perfectly valid celebration of what we have in common, and then the admission that there is nothing quite adequate to fill it.” This seems to be the complete opposite of urbane urbanism where all space is meant to be adequately filled and there is little room for individuality or anything “disharmonious” at all. Perhaps I will get a better grasp on what Jencks really means with his term upon more reading/discussion but as it stands it is the only “rule” that seemed suspect to me.